Did you follow the Democratic “debates” this winter? Can’t remember a single attack on anyone outside the Bush Administration.
I think both parties do this. Any evidence that the Republicans do more of it?
You’re not serious about this, are you? Howard Stern’s a Republican? Could’ve sworn he’s an entertainer/comic. But even if we grant that he’s a serious Republican it’s just further evidence of the diversity in the party. And evidence that there’s no protection for insiders like Marc Rich got from Clinton.
Well that last bit is certainly persuasive. I’m convinced. Not only is your logic compelling but I’d really like to spend time with people who argue like that. Where do I sign up?
Here is one news story describing the Club for Growth ads:
(bolding mine)
This was, of course, all because Voinovich and Snowe had the nerve to demand a small tiny smidgeon of fiscal accountability by limiting the new round of tax cuts to something slightly less unaffordable. (Just as the French demanded some accountability by actually suggesting that maybe we ought to let inspections continue in order to help to determine the status of Saddam’s WMD programs rather than just taking the word of a bunch of people who we now know [and had very good reason to believe at the time] to be a combination of fabricators…apparently in league with Iranian intelligence service…and the easily duped.)
I don’t think the tax bill said anything about spending, but perhaps you are right and I’m wrong on that one. In any event I disagree with W about the increases in the budget (There’s that diversity thing again) and would prefer to see government spending cut each year. I don’t know if W wants to increase spending or does it to compromise with the moderates, but I’d rather he didn’t.
About the one year tax free holiday, it’s an interesting idea, but probably a bit extreme for me. It’s hard to know what’s optimal. I think if we could have given everyone a tax rebate of about $1000 in late January, 2001 (we’re assuming a VERY cooperative congress on this hypothetical) and immediately cut taxes by about 5% to 10% that would have been enough to get things going.
About the credit card joke, it would work as an analogy if we borrowed a ton of money and then sent it all outside the country, with the condition that it not be spent on American products. BTW, the spread betweeen my credit limit and average monthly purchases wouldn’t make it worth your time.
That’s just the nature of primary debates. They’re auditioning to be the standard bearer against Bush. Of COURSE they’re going to demonstrate their ability to attack him effectively and in line with the positions held by Democratic voters. That’s the entire point, really. That’s why Democrats voted for Kerry, they thought he could fight Bush more effectively than the other guys.
Also, everyone’s trying out for VP as well, or at least a place of power in the coming administration (or the opposition for Bush’s next term and a nod in 2008). They can’t afford to piss off teh guy who could be their next boss too much.
Plus, they do attack each other, quite viciously sometimes. Remember Howard Dean? They skewered him every chance they got.
And, by the way, many pundits have noted that the Democrats are unusually united this year in comparison to almost any other year (because of the severe threat our nation faces from another 4 years of disastrous policies). In fact, I have heard it noted that when George W. proclaimed himself “a uniter, not a divider”, he seemed to have been referring to his affect not on the nation as a whole but rather on the Democratic Party.
Nonetheless, there were still serious divisions on such issues as the War in Iraq.
As noted before, the Club for Growth is not the RNC. I’m sure there are Republicans who think that what they are doing is not such a great idea. But they certainly have a right to campaign for what they believe in.
And whether the differences are discussed in a manner that resembles some upper class Brits at tea or dopers in the BP is not the question. The fact is that the differences exist.
According to the American Conservative Union, for 2003:
Sen. Zell Miller had a 75% conservative rating
Rep Gene Taylor of Mississippi had a 68% rating
Rep Ike Skelton of Missouri had a 64% rating
Rep Lincoln Davis of Tennessee had a 61% rating
And there’s a fair number in the 50s.
There is certainly a shift in party identity and political philosophies, primarily because southern Democrats are, on the national stage, a dying breed. To say that this shows something about leftist Democratic politics is overblown by some here. Democratic identity up through the 80s were much more influenced by historical factors than politics: that is, many politicans identified themselves as Democrats despite the tendency of the party toward labor politics and the like.
It’s also extremely misleading for Plan B to argue that Republicans are more tolerant of intra-party dissent based upon the voting records of several New England senators: Collins, Snowe, Chafee. Big whoop. The Republican party of New England is different up there from the national party, just as the Democratic party of the south has been different than that national party.
Also keep in mind that the Republican Party actually drove two New England Republican Senators out of its ranks in the past five years: Jeffords because the GOP couldn’t tolerate his voting, and Bob Smith because he couldn’t tolerate the Republicans (though he later switched back).
I didn’t intend such a thing, I know that people will never agree on what makes someone conservative. To a communist, nearly all American politicians are hard right wing. And no one way of being conservative matters more to me than another. I was mainly listing a few issues that are stereotypically considered as antithetical to Democratic Party politics, such as being an NRA member or against Roe V. Wade. If there are libertarian, neoconservative, or religious right or any other sort of “conservative” Democrats, I’d be fascinated to know that too.
Just to clarify, I was the one who noted it. But, I also couldn’t find much evidence of the Republicans criticizing these ads…which were quite vicious…and attempting to distance themselves from them. I have to admit that I didn’t look that hard…So, if you can find such evidence, I’d certainly be interested. (My wild guess is that a few Republicans might have argued these ads were too intolerant of dissention but they certainly didn’t carry the day. And, I bet that one phone call from Bush to the Club for Growth saying “Thanks, but no thanks” could have gotten them pulled in a hurry!)
Well, as has been noted, the fact is that differences exist among Democrats too, as I noted on the war in Iraq issue, as was apparent in the Democratic debates despite your selective memory, as is apparent in LCV’s ratings on the environment, and as apparent in the rating that Ravenman has posted from the American Conservative Union. In contrast, you have provided exactly no evidence to support your claim of the Dems not tolerating differences.
Okay. And, I am willing to bet that there are several Democrats in Congress who not only have often supported gun rights but are even NRA members themselves, although I’ll leave it to others to establish this.
Well, as I noted, the Democratic Leadership Council was arguably founded with the purpose of making the Democratic Party more corporate-friendly to the point that Ralph Nader liked to note (with some exaggeration) that the only difference between Reps and Dems was that one was a pro-life pro-corporate party and the other was a pro-choice pro-corporate party.
